Talk:List of metro systems

Add two metro systems that aren't there in operational list

Can someone add the Palembang LRT and the Tyne and Wear Metro into the operational list? The Palembang LRT is technically a Metro because it's a light metro system even tho it's an LRT,like how the Penang LRT is being put in the under construction section so I think the Palembang LRT should be in the operational list, and the Tyne and Wear Metro in Newcastle is considered a Metro system but I don't see it in the list, Thanks Metrosfan (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The Tyne and Wear metro is probably the most controversial metro system in the world. There has been constant back n forth with it on the list. It keeps getting added, and then immediately removed by the same few people. I think we need to reopen this conversation in good faith, because whenever it gets brought up, the "veteran editors" just say, it's already been discussed, and just shuts the whole thing down. Personally I think it should be added for the following reasons:

1: it is already listed on every other version of this list in other languages.

2: light railway in the UK means light metro, such as the DLR, the Glasgow Subway, and yes, the TW Metro (in fact, the TW metro is considered be a prototype for the DLR). It does not mean "light rail" in the American sense. Those are referred to as "trams" like Manchester Metrolink or Sheffield supertrams. This, I believe is the biggest point of contention as the UK government considers it a light railway. I feel like American editors (who probably never rode the system) see that, and just consider it a light rail system in the American sense, unaware of the meaning in UK English.

3: The grade crossings mean nothing. No one is talking removing the Chicago L, Oslo Metro, or Rotterdam Metro. Anyone considering removing those systems would be laughed out of the room, so why is it accepted that the grade crossings disqualify the TW Metro?

4: The TW Metro's own Wikipedia article calls it a rapid transit system. Not only that, but Newcastle shows up on the map on this Wikipedia article.

5: The vehicles. Do these look like trams to you? The TW Metrocars cannot run on city streets. These are railcars designed for a metro system. The replacement railcars will be even more "heavy", in case this point is up for dispute.

6: This might not be as strong of a point, but they call it "Metro" in all the branding. Metro usually has one mean: metropolitan rapid transit system. Basically, it if looks like a duck, quaks like a duck, walks like a duck, and tells everyone that it's a duck, it's probably a duck.

To be fair, I might be a little biased sense I have personally ridden the entire system.

As for the Palembang LRT, I'm not too familiar with that system, so I cannot say for sure, but I looks like it also qualifies. Rckania (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the level crossings, it carries mainline traffic at Sunderland. Lots of systems call themselves metros but are not metros in the sense used here. Parts of many suburban railway systems operate very like metros in places but are not metros, mostly because of mixed traffic and level crossings. We can't call them all metros. Obviously, Tyne and Wear metro is an edge case, but it has been decided on numerous occasions that it doesn't qualify here.--Grahame (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a metro system, the train is a light metro not a suburban railway, the others may be a suburban railway system that claims to be a metro system but isn't, but not this, this is a completely different case, it completely qualify here Metrosfan (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

So, are we going to say that Bakerloo and District lines, or god forbid the Tokyo Metro, don't count? They carry mainline traffic. I just wish this list was consistent, and honestly, I feel like people have strange motives for removing it. At the end of the day, does it really matter to your average person who wants to know if there are any metro systems in Britain outside of London?

So you suggest that the correct classification is suburban rail, but it is never referred to as that anywhere official. Additionally, it is not regulated like a suburban railway. This is why Merseyrail does not count as a metro. It may be separate from true mainline traffic, but it is regulated as a mainline rail, so it's not exactly a metro. This is not the case with the TW Metro. Rckania (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

How a railway is "regulated" is totally irrelevant to its operation. Merseyrail is separate from freight and mainline traffic. Timetables are not needed as frequencies are high. BTW, the Merseyrail trains are owned by the Liverpool City Region. 152.37.91.247 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, a more direct comparison is Line 3 of the Athens Metro. It does the exact same thing as the TW metro, but it is still on the list. Rckania (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The trains on the Amsterdam Metro are also the same and it's still on the list, this completely make sense why it should be on this list Metrosfan (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! I'm with @Metrosfan. Keeping the TW metro off this list for the stated reasons is just inconsistent. This list should remain consistent. Rckania (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear Metro is metro system by all sensible criteria. It is completely self-contained. It has its own ticketing system. It caters for passengers going to, from and around Newcastle. It does not carry freight. One of the distinguishing points is that the service frequency is such that users don't normally consult the timetable. (Many users don't even know that the timetable exists.) OrewaTel (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

ive added the Tyne and Wear Metro along with the Elizabeth Line here, and apparently it haven't been removed, it only got did once but someone else re-added it and then it was never removed again Metrosfan (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. But the Elizabeth Line is not a metro line. It shares tracks with other network rail trains and uses heavy rolling stock Rckania (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

1: As discussed previosuly, this doesn't mean anything.

2: It doesn't matter what government consider. If tommorow some government consider a bus system a metro system, it will still be a metro system. Personal work is not a valid source, therefore, having riding it is by no mean a valid argument.

3: Chicago L, Oslo Metro, or Rotterdam Metro. Those metro system have most lines fully segragated (or at least one that is a full metro line). TW Metro shares a good part of it's tracks with mainline trains, which could mean it's... a mainline train service.

4: As said above, his is not a valid source

5: It's not because it's not a tram that it's a metro.

6: There are tons of cities calling their BRT, trams or suburban train systems metro. It doesn't make it a metro

As all the above arguments are not valid, and consensus have previosuly been found regarding that matter, I remove the TW metro from the list. If TW metro desserves inclusion, please provide valid and sourced reasons.

Capt'n London (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

London's Metro System

In addition to the Tube, TfL (Transport for London) run the Overground and the Elizabeth Line. The Elizabeth line is regarded by most people as a tube line. This is despite TfL continually publicising the fact that it isn't part of the Underground and the popular quiz question, "Is the Elizabeth Line an Underground Line?" The Overground is owned by National Rail but is otherwise identical to the Underground lines.

Some discussion has been about the regulations in force. In UK all rail systems must comply with the full Board of Trade regulations. It makes no difference whether the line is a short heritage line or a full blown inter-city express line. Also in UK the term light rail means a line where the rolling stock is less robust. What other countries call light rail is called a tramway. A tram is a rail vehicle that is allowed to run on the public highway. All other track guided vehicles must run on a segregated track that is fenced off.

Since they fulfil all the criteria, I suggest both London Overground and Elizabeth Line be added to the list of metros. OrewaTel (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure about the London Overground but the Elizabeth Line definitely counts,I will add the Elizabeth Line along with the Tyne and Wear Metro on the list Metrosfan (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

i added it but it turned out it got removed by someone else Metrosfan (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Metrosfan @OrewaTel Elizabeth Line isn't a metro system, since it 120km network, also Reading is a good 30 miles from London and the definition of Metro on Wiki is that it doesn't really go outside of the city. London Underground Limited operates the London Underground LONDON UNDERGROUND LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) Elizabeth Line is operated by MTR Elizabeth Line MTR ELIZABETH LINE LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK (company-information.service.gov.uk) Elizabeth Line is more of a suburban Railway than a Metro system also there is quite a few stations which get a low frequency and also Elizabeth Line is part of National Rail. London Overground and Elizabeth Line operate in a completely different way to London Underground. They is a level crossing at Twyford Station which Elizabeth Line passes near to. London Overground crosses over a few level crossings which makes it not a segregated system. Elizabeth Line for the most part shares tracks with other services like freight and the Great Western Railway Didcot Parkway to London Paddington stopper. London Overground and Elizabeth Line train drivers have to follow completely different set of rules to the London Underground drivers. Also Elizabeth Line and London Overground use AWS, TPWS and GSM-R which the London Underground does not use for there services. Tyne & Wear Metro is a Metro system Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Act 1979 (legislation.gov.uk) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The minutiae of regulations do not determine whether a line is a Metro and nor does who owns the line. The problem is there is not a clear cut division between Metro and non-Metro railways. You could argue that the Metropolitan and District lines don't qualify as Metros. The Metropolitan line was originally meant to go as far as Oxford and to-day it still services Amersham and Chesham in the wilds of Buckinghamshire. There are three pedestrian level crossings on the District line and it shares tracks with National Rail. (It runs over former LSWR rails that are still owned by National Rail.) But any definition of Metro that excludes the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan District Railway is not worth having. The Elizabeth Line runs as far as Reading but unlike the Metropolitan Line it does not run through open countryside. Reading is part of the London conurbation. I have found the level crossing at Twyford and it does not cross the Elizabeth Line. In any case level crossings do not invalidate UK regulations that require all rail lines to be securely fenced off. OrewaTel (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A metro is a underground or largely underground system according to the Collins dictionary, Elizabeth Line and London Overground are both mainly Overground. Arguably the Metropolitan and District lines and the rest of the London Underground network are the definition of a Metro. Which branch are these level crossings on the District Line. The Network Rail sectional appendix shows no level crossings on the district line.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/metro https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/ I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 08:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Metros aren't necessarily largely underground, and in fact even the majority of the London Underground itself runs above ground. The important part is grade-separation. Westindiaman (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Metro systems can go out of the city, all RapidKL LRT and MRT lines go outside Kuala Lumpur, there's even one line that's gonna be entirely outside Kuala Lumpur under construction, some metro systems like the Rotterdam Metro and Oslo Metro have lower frequency and more level crossings and are qualified on this list Metrosfan (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The pedestrian level crossings were the subject of one of Geoff Marshall's YouTube videos.They are on the Upminster Branch. Most of the London Underground is above ground. In particular the Dollis Brook Viaduct on the Mill Hill East Branch is 18 metres high and at Whitechapel station the Underground crosses over the Overground.Greenford station used to have an escalator to take passengers from street level up to the platforms. Aside from Waterloo & City and Victoria, all the Underground Lines go out to the countryside. The tube station in Theydon Bois is the only point in the village to have street lights. Meanwhile the point of rebranding the suburban lines as London Overground was to publicise their metro-style services. OrewaTel (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The Elizabeth line shares tracks with other mainline trains (including freight trains) and is regulated as such. It's out. The Berlin S-Bahn and Merseyrail are closer to being metro systems than the Lizzy line is. Rckania (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Even Merseyrail has freight trains interlining with it to get to Liverpool Docks. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Freight trains do not share tracks with Merseyrail. The freight trains to Liverpool docks are diesel on their own line. 152.37.91.247 (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Seoul Korail, London Elizabeth line/Overground, Moscow Central Diameters, Berlin S-Bahn, Paris RER, Tokyo Yamanote/Keihin-Tohoku/Chuo-Sobu, Tokyu etc

@Laggingcomputer: @Ymblanter: @Nonusme: @Metrosfan: @Rckania: @OrewaTel: @I Like The british Rail Class 483:

I can see User:Laggingcomputer has added [1] Korail line to the list. And I see a discussion about Elizabeth line above. So we need to bring this to broader question. First, let's see both UITP definitions. Older and newer one.

Metropolitan railways are urban, electric transport systems with high capacity and a high frequency of service. Metros are totally independent from other traffic, road or pedestrians. They are consequently designed in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation. Some systems run on rubber-tyres but are based on the same control-command principles as steel-wheel systems. In different parts of the world metro systems are also known as the underground, subway or tube.

— older

Metros: UGT systems operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic. They are consequently designed for operations in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible. In different parts of the world Metro systems are also known as the underground, the subway or the tube. Rail systems with specific construction issues operating on a segregated guideway (e.g. monorail, rack railways) are also treated as Metros as long as they are designated as part of the urban public transport network.

— newer

So to meet the definition a system should meet certain criteria:

1. A system should primarily service a city. Not a far suburbia or distant cities. So should not just operate mostly within agglomeration boundaries, but also intended to operate for agglomeration needs;

2. A system should be high capacity (heavy rail) (low capacity are trams (light rails));

3. A system should run isolated and on exclusive tracks.

Now, we do not include Moscow Central Diameters, because it's not running on exclusive tracks yet. It's sharing tracks with suburban trains for the time its infrastructure is being under construction. While I can see that both Korail and Elizabeth line are operating primevally within agglomeration, are they running exclusively of other service? Then, if we look at Berlin S-Bahn and Paris RER - they entirely meeting the definition - running within agglomerations, exclusively and isolated. All other S-Bahn systems are purely suburban and commuter systems, but Berlin's one is purely metro system. Let alone tones of lines in Tokyo. And in the end, if we look at many Chinese systems, we will find that they include some far lines, like 30-40-kilometer long airport express lines with just 1 or 2 stations in between of terminal stations, that definitely do not servicing the city. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth line interlines whith Great Western Railway, C2C, Heathrow Express, rail tours and Freight trains. London Overground has a number of level crossings and also interlines with a number of different train services. Elizabeth Line at the Western end (Reading) is 36 miles 00 chains which 57.936384 km which is around 58 km from London Paddington. sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 23/Western and Wales Sectional Appendix December 2023.pdf sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 23/Kent Sussex and Wessex Sectional Appendix December 2023 .pdf sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/sectional-appendix/Sectional Appendix full PDFs December 23/Anglia Sectional Appendix December 2023.pdf Realtime Trains | 1P77 0649 Didcot Parkway to London Paddington | 19/01/2024 Realtime Trains | 9U55 0714 Reading to Abbey Wood | 19/01/2024 I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Reading is pretty much an edge of agglomeration, so that is not the problem. Exclusivity and one level crossings is the problem. But if that are just few occasional trains per day, then it can be classified as an exception. As well as there are just 2-3 one level crossings over entire system. But if it's suburban and freight trains going all day long, then it's not eligible for the list. And if we remove exclusivity as a condition, then we would have to include dozens of lines from Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya, if not hundreds. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

grade crossings aren't a problem (see Chicago L, Oslo Metro, Rotterdam Metro), but exclusivity is. Yes, the District Line and Bakerloo Line do share tracks with mainline trains, but they only share tracks with commuter rail trains that use similar rolling stock and infrastructure. For that reason, they get a free pass. The Elizabeth Line is sharing tracks with Intercity trains and freight trains. That's just not the same thing. If it was truly a metro, why does it have it's own identity and is not considered part of the underground by TFL? Rckania (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand your opinion, but Some metro Lines could get their own identity rather than being a part of the main system, this is the same case as why the Rinkai Line in Tokyo isnt part of neither Tokyo Metro or Toei Subway, or the Jakarta LRT isn't a part of the Jabodebek LRT Metrosfan (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. It's a bit more understandable now. Can we at least make this a little more consistent? If we are keeping the Elizabeth Line (which it looks like we are), can we add Merseyrail and the berlin S-bahn, and maybe Metrovalencia? Rckania (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Metrosfan Having at least 60 freight trains per day interlining with Elizabeth Line trains makes it not a metro line and also there is at least 48 freight paths interlining with Merseyrail. Western Network Specification 2018 v9 (windows.net) Freight train capacity doubles to Port of Liverpool thanks to £8.3 million line upgrade - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Merseyrail shares no tracks with freight trains. 152.37.91.247 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Grade crossing isn't the problem when it's a rare exception. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Elk Salmon @Rckania West of West Drayton are not part of London and also the gaps between some of the stations are like 5 miles in some cases on MTR Elizabeth Line. Reading is a conurbation with Wokingham and Bracknell, Maidenhead is a conurbation with Furze Plate, Slough is a conurbation with Burnham. All are clearly separated by Greenland which is part of the Greenbelt. London Overground has at least five level crossings if not more. Three on the Romford Upminster Branch and two on the North London Line. There is at least one train per hour of freight Elizabeth line interlines with between Reading and Acton Mainline. A video of a freight trains and Elizabeth line interlining. Trains at Ealing Broadway [EAL] - GWML (29/06/2022) (youtube.com) Last time I checked the British Rail Class 444s are not commuter trains, to be fair they only use the District line between Wimbledon and East Putney for ECS (Empty Coaching Stock) moves and also diversion moves. Class 444 Passes Wimbledon Park *VERY RARE* (Passenger train) (youtube.com) I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. The Elizabeth line does not count. I just got tired of arguing since Metrosfan would not seem to let it go. Rckania (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a part of London administrative-territorial unit, but it is a part of agglomeration. Very edge of it. If the line shares tracks with half a hundred freight pairs per day. The it definitely not eligible, just like MCD. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I though there was a long-standing consensus that KoRail (specifically Line 1 of Seoul Metro which goes to Incheon) should not be added to the list because it is also used by freight trains. Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

the korail lines are basically like S bahn lines. So a tunnel for mainline commuter trains. Rckania (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to note specifically about Berlin S-Bahn. Unlike other S-bahn systems, Berlin's one is operating within the agglomeration, fully isolated and running on exclusive infrastructure with third rail electrification. Same applies to RER. There are just few stations goes off the agglomeration. The system is isolated and serving the city. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: and I am sure there are more regulars who should be pinged. Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember the KoRail discussions. Definitely was consensus to omit them. (I also remember the harassment of a new user who was just trying to help. Could he have been a little bit more accommodating, sure. But the behavior aimed at him was totally uncalled for.)

Every recent discussion has basically said to omit S-Bahns as being really more commuter rail than metro. They may do the heavy lifting in place of metros in some cities, and they may run nearly as frequently, especially where they interline in city centers, but they're wider station spacing and lower frequency in outer areas, along with many still having physical connections to the national networks, makes them a separate thing. There's a reason German has a separate terms for U-Bahns and S-Bahns. Paris's RER is just a French name for an S-Bahn. The key thing is that nowhere will anyone find a source calling the RER the world's longest metro. So listing it as a metro is clearly invalid original research. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You could make the case for the Berlin S-bahn, but only the Berlin S-Bahn. It runs on exclusive tracks and uses third rail. It's even more apparent when you look at the history. The Ubahn and the S-bahn were built by competing companies. It just happened that the S-bahn was brought under ownership of the National Railway Company when it was formed. Rckania (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Terramorphous: Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no clear cut definition of what constitutes a Metro. Instead we have a continuous range from Mainline long distance trains to short shuttles within a tunnel. Somewhere we say, "To the left are Metros, to the right are non-Metros." The word 'Metro' comes from the name Metropolitan Railway - the World's first Metro. And yet when people start nit-picking, it seems that they may have to exclude the Metropolitan Line. I'm reminded of climatologists who messed with the definition of Mediterranean Climate so that place such as Italy and Greece now have a Pseudo-Mediterranean climate. So what do we do? Do we include the frequently served Elizabeth Line that runs through tunnels in central London or do we exclude the London Underground because it dares to go above ground. I still remember a time when goods trains ran on the Metropolitan line to Smithfield meat market in the middle of London. (There were special sidings under the market where the car park is now.) If we start excluding real Metros because of some fancy definition, is this list useful? OrewaTel (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Going above ground was never the problem. The problem is that it runs on mainline tracks shared with other trains of various types. And it is clearly something different from the London Underground. The sub-surface lines of the Underground are literally the oldest underground railway lines in the world, so of course they are going to have some quirks that are grandfather in. They were built before the lines were drawn. As, frustrating as it is to some peoples who like rigid definitions and want everything to fit in a box, older metro systems get a free pass if they have oddities that would disqualify them if they were built later. This is why the Oslo Metro and Chicago L count (despite their grade crossings) while the St Louis Metrolink and Charlotte blue line don't. Rckania (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

The Elizabeth Line is clearly different? Tell that to the thousands of commuters who go to their Metro station to ride home after work each day. OrewaTel (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Tell that to TFL. The Elzabeth line is one of the many commuter rail lines in London. It's part of that network. Rckania (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Then we have to include most of infrastructure in Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya and Moscow. It's also "their metro". Elk Salmon (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

At the end of the day, what it almost always comes down to, if you're not sure, is how they are regulated and managed in their respective country. The line 1 of the Soeul subway is regulated as a mainline railway and operated by KoRail, therefore it's not a metro. The Tokyo Metro has trains from mainline railways running on the system, but it's regulated like a metro and operated by the local transport authority, therefore, it's a metro. The Yamonte Line is owned and operated by JR East and is regulated as a mainline railway, therefore, it's not a metro. The london underground sub surface lines are managed by local authorities and are regulated as metros, they are metros. The Elizabeth Line is owned by Network Rail and is regulated as heavy rail, therefore, it's not a metro. The Berlin S Bahn is operated by DB, therefore, it's not a metro. Merseyrail is owned by Network Rail and is part of the national rail system, therefore, it's not a metro. The U5 Line in Essen is regulated as a tramway, therefore, it's not a metro. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Rckania (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the way this list is defined is too narrow and should be scrapped for a more inclusive "list of urban railway systems" Which can include metros and s-bahn like systems, but excludes light rail and trams. This will allow for the inclusion of not just Merseyrail, the Lizzy Line, the London overground, Metrovalencia, and the Berlin S Bahn, but it can also include things like the Wuppertal Monorail, and the Warsaw Commuter rail. If this list is truly beyond saving, this is my proposal for going further. Rckania (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a wiki on fandom that's basically the same as this but they included some light rail, premetros and maybe even commuter rail systems on it, it says it does contain some light rail systems on it Metrosfan (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Korail Metros" were already within the list, but it had inconsistent details. What I did was mostly fixing these up, as there were inconsistent details about almost all systems in Busan and Seoul.

I think at least some parts of Line 1 should count, at the very least, and there is possible debate about other Korail lines counting for this list, but I think that debate is not a useful one. On one hand, I have added detail that implies that line 1 is counted as a metro (because it really should be), but I have also removed Donghae Line in Busan as a metro, as that has 30 minute headways and also shares tracks with freight and other mainline services.

For the most part, the mainline services on line 1 tracks are quite rare, with the exception of Gwangmyeong shuttle and the Cheonan-Sinchang section where line 1 does not have dedicated tracks for itself. However, most objections arise from the argument that line 1 shares the same corridor as Korail's mainline passenger and freight services. Despite this, line 1 does indeed have dedicated tracks for the most part and I think it should count.

Further, it should be noted that some Korail lines (namely, Line 3, Line 4, and the Suin-Bundang line), operate on 100% dedicated tracks and only shares tracks with other Korail "metro-style" services. I assume that would be the reason why it was included in the list to begin with.

I still have no idea how one would count 7 lines for Seoul Metro, though, the beginning part of this list clearly states that the criteria for dividing systems is mostly the operator, and there are quite clearly 9 lines operated by Seoul Metro, and 11 lines owned by Seoul city government (this is the figure I used). Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

also why is Bursaray on this list, it looks morely like a light rail system than a metro system, The rolling stock for Bursaray system is like the Frankfurt U-Bahn which is clearly a light rail/premetro Metrosfan (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

So? The rolling stock is similar but the services are different Rckania (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair i guess Metrosfan (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I am also sure we had a long-standing consensus that Tyne and Wear Metro should not be added, but I see it on the list again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

not really. It was on this list for longer than it wasn't. It also included in every other language version of this article. It only got removed because of an argument that happened a couple years ago. Rckania (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

the Tyne and Wear Metro clearly must be added, You've already seen @Rckaniaproved that it's a metro system in another discussion thats not yet archived Metrosfan (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I saw that the Brisbane Cross River Rail and Melbourne Metro Tunnel keep on getting removed because people think it's part of a suburban Rail network Metrosfan (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

because they are? the tunnels in the end are being incorporated into the Melbourne and Brisbane Suburban Rail systems 75.148.89.93 (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I still see it's getting removed even though these systems has already been stated it should not be removed Metrosfan (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

They are basically S-Bahn tunnels, but it ultimately comes down to branding. Even though these systems might meet some (or all) criteria for being a "metro" the respective agencies make no attempt to claim these to be metros. Kinda like the JR East suburban services in Tokyo, where some lines -- especially the Yamanote line -- are basically metro lines but don't count for this list. Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

the Metro Tunnel has already been discussed as it qualifies on this list, and the Cross River Rail is the exact same as the Metro Tunnel, so therefore these systems should not be removed, the person who removed them even saw the note itself Metrosfan (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there was actual consensus on Melbourne but that was based also on the complete removal of level crossings in the lines that will be using the tunnel, something which is not happening in Brisbane, which ought to disqualify Brisbane entirely. Additionally, I'm under the impression that the Melbourne system still shares tracks with longer distance diesel rail and freight, which should imply that it should be considered regional rail, if perhaps of a type closer to metro operations similar to the RER 2601:1C2:1400:5990:E06E:40BA:19FB:4908 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources" we should not be trying to come up with our own "original" definition for "what counts as a metro", but instead should see what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say the Elizabeth Line is not a metro line, it is not. If reliable sources say it is, then it is. Matthewmayer (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The TFL says that the Elizabeth Line is a metro style service, the following link links you to the evidence https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/elizabeth-line/your-journey-by-elizabeth-line#:~:text=The%20Elizabeth%20line%20is%20a,be%20inside%20the%20ticket%20gates. Metrosfan (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Metro-style service does not mean it's a true metro. The line shares tracks with other mainline trains outside of the urban core which should give you a pretty clear indication that it's not a metro so please remove it from this list. EZ73 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources encourages finding secondary sources, ie its less important what TFL call it as a primary source, and more important how other reliable, independent, published sources describe it. Matthewmayer (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no one clear source of what is and is not a metro, different countries, different languages, and even different cities within a single country has different standards as to what is and is not a metro.

Not to mention that some "definitions" of metro will be... less than great. Consider that the Metropolitan line, the oft-cited "first metro line of the world" and the namesake of "metro" is not a metro until several decades or sometimes 1 or 2 centuries into its existence depending on how you define a metro. During the early days it was more of an underground mainline connection to the city, much like what can be seen in some Japanese private rail lines.

We could try to use local regulation to define what is a metro, but that leads to all sorts of silly results that get beholden to local regulation in the respective cities, not to mention that it is ambiguous as to what categories of regulation in each country should count as "metro".

Ultimately, I think the only solution to this conundrum is to get rid of most distinctions and use three, clear-cut criteria for "urban rail" and combine all systems as such.

As such, I propose the following:

1. Be useful and practical for moving from horizontally-separated points A and B within a single contiguous city, ideally using city-proper boundaries. This excludes heritage systems and theme park systems, which would be deemed impractical. Any gimmicky system that is slower than walking will be automatically excluded as they are not "useful". Horizontal separation clause exists to eliminate elevators. This also aims to exclude systems that are too expensive to be practical for urban transportation (i.e. HSR systems), as well as systems that are too infrequent to be useful (i.e. most regional and suburban rail systems. Frankly I think suburban and regional rail systems should be included if they can be used like a metro).

1a. The vehicle must come to a complete stop at the points where the hypothetical journey from A and B is set to board and deboard the vehicle. (This exists to exclude crazy ideas like hopping onto freight trains)

2. Be comprised of rail vehicles, which must have physical guidance of some sort, with more than one opening on a side, and a space for passengers to ride on, usually equipped with handles and seats. This excludes BRT systems masquerading as metros.

3. It must be open to passenger usage. Staff-only vehicles, mail rail, and other such vehicles do not count towards this definition.

An optional grade separation clause may be added to exclude tram systems, but seeing how some European "metro" systems are glorified tram systems, I think that is not needed. Laggingcomputer (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. My only gripe is the grade separation part. Here's how I think grade separation should be handled: If the system does have grade crossings, but has full preemption with gates and/or lights, it counts. This is in a way and "temporary grade separation." Stuff that is in the same right of way as a road and has to stop at red lights with cars are out. Even if these systems have full priority at intersections, there is no distinction between stopping for cars and stopping for trains. This eliminates most of the Stadbahn systems and stuff like it, but includes stuff like the TW metro, and the Edmonton Light Rail and the Valencia Metro.

TLDR: Stopping at stoplights = not a metro

So, ultimately, making this list more inclusive and including more metro-like systems is better for the average user who knows nothing about trains and is just trying to see if an individual city has a metro system or not. This list should probably be renamed to "List of Electric Urban Rail Systems" just to make things a little more clear. What do the rest of you think? Rckania (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to create a new section to discuss this potential split further Rckania (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Also I'm pretty sure there was a time Orlyval was added, it meets like all the criteria's required and, the system is longer than the Lausanne Metro and Dnipro Metro in length and it has same amount of stations as Karaj Metro and more than RTS Link,it has high frequency, fully elevated and it's similar to the Toulose Metro, Lille Metro and Rennes Metro Line A, so why was it removed? its even listed on another language version of this article and on the low capacity metro system list Metrosfan (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether that is a metro or not is up for debate, but even if it is a metro, it should really just be considered a part of Paris Metro, being operated by RATP and having rubber-tyred wheels just like certain other Paris Metro lines. A potential argument against that is that it is disconnected from the rest of Paris Metro, but it does still have RER and tram connections which I think are enough. It definitely does not deserve to be its own system when it only has 3 stops. Laggingcomputer (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Orlyval is obviously an airport people mover. And it's appropriately listed on the List of airport people mover systems. It doesn't belong here. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think lines being separated from the main system in the city is a problem, Take Tokyo as a example, the Rinkai Line isn't operated by neither Tokyo Metro or Toei Subway, or why Jakarta LRT and Jabodebek LRT in Jakarta are different Metrosfan (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Also for the part of being disconnected, Singapore LRT (i know it isn't a metro but using it as a example) was completely seperated, none of its lines are connected to each other, one line is even in the west while two other lines in the east Metrosfan (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say it's a problem. Another way to put what I meant to say would be "even though OrlyVAL is separated from the Paris Metro, I think it should just be included as Paris Metro if you really want to insist on it being a metro. Thus, it should not be listed as its own system, and there should not be a separate list entry for OrlyVAL." Laggingcomputer (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

why it cannot be a different system? It should just be like how in some other cities like Tokyo, Seoul and Jakarta where a line is separated from the main system Metrosfan (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to mention that this is an almost completely different situation. Tokyo and Seoul have distinct systems because they are operated by different companies. Frankly I am of the opinion that these should be merged into one system too but that's besides the point right now. These are often near-full-fledged metro systems on their own, which warrants the separate system distinction.

Compare this to OrlyVAL, which is basically an airport access shuttle, operated by RATP. There are only three stops on this thing for crying out loud. The only plausible argument for this being its own system is geographic separation and branding, and both are rather weak in my eyes. Laggingcomputer (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The Karaj Metro also has 3 stops only, and the future Johor Bahru-Woodlands RTS Link has only 2 stops, so I don't see why it's a problem Metrosfan (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Johor Bahru - Woodlands is not really its own system either, it connects to Singapore MRT and frankly it would just be a part of Singapore MRT if it weren't for the fact that it literally crosses an international border. As for Karaj Metro, that one has plans for more expansion. Both are quite a different situation from OrlyVAL. Laggingcomputer (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

i don't think connecting means they're the same system,as in Manila, the MRT and LRT are different systems but are still connected, same for London Underground and DLR in London Metrosfan (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I need to question/challenge the three criteria you have extrapolated from the UITP definition here.

On the first criteria, while I think that is a valid concept for defining a metro the UITP documents don't seem to actually include a definition of urban, so it is an assumption to say it excludes "far suburbs" (not a great term that seems open to debate) or even commuter cities. If we're taking the UITP definition, it seems to just be "urban" broadly defined. Depending on the definition and context, urban can have many meanings; quite often definitions of urban include all contiguous suburbs.

On the second criteria, again I would somewhat agree personally but the UITP definition does not say anything about capacity. And indeed lots of metros have smaller vehicles, so I don't think you can include this as a key criteria when it's not in the definition. That is a critera added on top of the UITP.

On the question of track exclusivity the definition says "operated on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic", but you appear to have changed that to "isolated and on exclusive tracks", which in my view has a different meaning. It seems the UITP definition defines metro as separated from "road and pedestrian traffic" but not necessarily other train traffic, which makes sense given how often there are exceptions to this rule. Is the assumption that "own right of way" means "no other rail traffic", because that is not how I interpret that term and it seems like that is being inferred in the definition rather than read. Not even getting into the fact that multiple systems on the list already don't follow this.

So if we are actually using the UITP definition as the basis for determining this list then we should draw criteria that directly from the key components of their definition. Something like:

1. An urban guided transport system operating on their own right of way and segregated from general road and pedestrian traffic

2. Can operate in tunnel, viaducts or on surface level but with physical separation in such a way that inadvertent access is not possible

3. They may be known as the underground, the subway or the tube

4. Rail systems with specific construction issues operating on a segregated guideway (e.g. monorail, rack railways) are also treated as Metros as long as they are designated as part of the urban public transport network.

This would allow a lot more systems like the Elizabeth Line, which doesn't bother me personally. In my view, given the weak UITP definitions this page as it stands essentially constitutes OR and should either properly follow the UTIP definition, find a new definition or be changed to a "list of urban rail systems" using a broad definition like UTIP or similar. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus over systems under construction/proposed in cities that already has a metro

There's a consensus in the under construction and proposed section, for the under construction section, it says only metro systems under construction are listed when there are no metro systems operating in the same city. The same thing was also mentioned in the planned system but also says under construction, Should that consensus be removed? I personally believe that some rapid transit systems such as the Metro Manila Subway in Manila and the Cairo Monorail in Cairo, which are under construction, and systems such as Penang Monorail in George Town, Dhaka Subway in Dhaka, and the Bangkok LRT in Bangkok, which are under planning, should be listed as they have their own operator and they do meet criterias Metrosfan (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@SHB2000@Rckania@Oknazevad@OrewaTel @Laggingcomputer@Nonusme@Ymblanter@Mhaot@Matthewmayer Metrosfan (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The current consensus is based on the idea that planned or under construction lines are extensions of the existing systems. That said, if it really is an entirely separate system, operationally speaking, as already is found in some systems in the same city (like the New York City Subway and PATH), then it may make sense to list them separately. Then again, the NYC Subway is also a counter example because of its own history of having been previously three separate systems before unification. oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

They are, I believe they should be listed, as they are a different system, but still meet the criteria, we should just make a note saying not to add extensions or lines of existing systems that's under planning or construction Metrosfan (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the convention that only cities (and metro areas in most cases) that already has a metro system can't be counted, this shouldn't be any different for planned/proposed systems Mhaot (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

So what does that mean, should it be removed or kept? Metrosfan (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Example: Lets pretend NYC plans to build a separate new metro system, this will never ever be counted as NYC already has a metro systems. Mhaot (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

i personally believe the consensus should be removed, as they have their own branding and operator,leaving the system out of the list until it opens isn't just really.... Kinda inconsistent Metrosfan (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be added or removed: it can only be achieved. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

How do we get it removed then? Like Metrosfan (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

if it cannot be removed then what do we do to archive it Metrosfan (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing it and then archiving it, is still removing it. One can only do what is also done outside Wikipedia regarding consensus. KatVanHuis (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mhaot@Oknazevad@Matthewmayer@SHB2000@Rckania@Ymblanter so therefore should it be archived? Metrosfan (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what is meant by consensus as a word, let alone the Wikipedia meaning of the term. I'd advise you read up on that. Consensus is never removed. That's just a total misunderstanding of the concept. oknazevad (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Light metro, LRT and commuter rail system.

Light metro, LRT and commuter rail should not be added here as this is a different type of system as compared to MRT. There is already a dedicated page for light rail as well as other mentioned system such as LRT and commuter rail, so it should be included there not here. The definition of MRT is different so it should not be here, it should be on those pages. Sak7340 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

it was already agreed by other editors here that light metros and light rapid transit do belong here, also the Korail commuter rail lines aren't included there, there are some lines in Seoul that are operated by Korail Metrosfan (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Mhaot@Rckania@Nonusme@Oknazevad@CCL-DTL@SHB2000@Matthewmayer@YmblanterMetrosfan (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Laggingcomputer Metrosfan (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with removal. There's already a list for those systems at medium-capacity rail system which includes these. It's an apples-to-pears comparison. They're similar and closely related, but still distinct and one wouldn't use pears to make an apple pie. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It has already been including any light metro systems since it was created, many systems that are light metros were already considered to belong here, especially the London DLR, Kuala Lumpur LRT, Bangkok MRT,Manila LRT, Montreal REM, they have already been included since this was created, the light rail and tram systems list even says these type of systems that were branded as LRT qualifies as metro systems, if these sourh korean systems dont belong there, then a lot others especially the ones like the Lille Metro will have to be removed aswell Metrosfan (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note that light metros, commuter rails, and light rapid transit are distinct types of rail transit systems and should not be included in the definition of mass rapid transit (MRT). The existing definitions of light metros, commuter rail, and light rapid transit do not align with the characteristics of MRT. This information was not included previously and has been edited recently. Sak7340 (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal of Light Metros as it is metro standard with high-frequency grade separated rail but only with shorter trains (less than six carriages). Most Medium-capacity rail system mentioned has the same technology as well again only with shorter trains

Example - Guangzhou Metro Line 3 and HK MTR Ma On Shan Line (now Tuen Ma Line) used to be classified as light metro or Medium-capacity rail system since it was 3 or 4 cars but was declassified as it was expanded beyond 5 cars not due to technology change Mhaot (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The classification of Light Metros as a metro standard with high-frequency, grade-separated rail, but with shorter trains (less than six carriages), is inaccurate and misleading. Light Metros operate on a smaller scale with lower passenger capacities compared to traditional mass rapid transit (MRT) systems. While Light Metros may share some technological similarities with MRT systems, such as grade separation and high-frequency service, they serve different purposes and are designed for different levels of capacity and ridership.

Light Metros typically have smaller vehicles and shorter train lengths, limiting their capacity to accommodate large volumes of passengers. In contrast, traditional MRT systems, such as those found in major cities like Tokyo, London, and New York, operate with longer trains and higher passenger capacities to serve densely populated urban areas.

Furthermore, the classification of Medium-capacity rail systems as having the same technology as Light Metros, but with shorter trains, overlooks significant differences between the two systems. Medium-capacity rail systems, such as tram-trains and light rail transit (LRT) systems, are designed to operate in mixed traffic environments and typically have lower speeds and capacities compared to Light Metros and traditional MRT systems.

For example, Guangzhou Metro Line 3 and HK MTR Ma On Shan Line (now Tuen Ma Line) may have been classified as Light Metros or Medium-capacity rail systems in the past due to their shorter trains, but their classification was likely adjusted as they expanded beyond five cars, indicating a significant increase in capacity and ridership demand. This change in classification was not solely due to a technology change but rather reflected the evolution of the system to meet growing transportation needs.

In summary, Light Metros, Medium-capacity rail systems, and traditional MRT systems are distinct types of rail transit systems with unique characteristics and purposes. While they may share some technological similarities, their differences in capacity, ridership, and operational characteristics warrant separate classifications to accurately represent their respective roles in urban transportation networks. Sak7340 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

it isn't misleading, that's just how everything is, Medium capacity rail systems are still having higher capacity than Auto people mover and tram systems, and they already have true metro origin, light rapid transit and light rail transit (trams) are different and should not be confused with, as mentioned by @Mhaot, light metros does have metro standard and capacity, also, some MRT systems branded as MRT are literally light metros, just take Bangkok MRT Blue & Pink Line, Manila MRT Line 3, or Taichung MRT, these systems are literally branded as metro and not light metro Metrosfan (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

While I appreciate the perspective shared, it's important to clarify that while Medium-capacity rail systems may indeed have higher capacity than Auto people movers and tram systems, they still operate on a different scale compared to traditional mass rapid transit (MRT) systems. The distinction between Light Metros, Medium-capacity rail systems, and other forms of rail transit is crucial for accurately representing their characteristics and operational roles within urban transportation networks.

Furthermore, while some MRT systems may be branded as metros, it's essential to consider the specific characteristics and operational standards of each system to determine their classification accurately. For example, while Bangkok MRT Blue & Pink Line, Manila MRT Line 3, and Taichung MRT may be branded as metros, their operational characteristics, including train length, passenger capacity, and service frequency, may align more closely with Light Metros or Medium-capacity rail systems rather than traditional MRT systems.

Ultimately, maintaining clarity and accuracy in the classification of rail transit systems ensures that stakeholders and the public have a clear understanding of the capabilities and roles of each system within the broader transportation network. Sak7340 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

it isn't that diffrent, the frequency is the same, they still have true metro origin, and besides, train length don't even matter, because some metro lines with shorter length may be heavier than some metro lines with longer length Metrosfan (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

While it's true that frequency and origin can be factors in classifying rail transit systems, it's important to consider a combination of factors, including train length, passenger capacity, and operational characteristics, to accurately classify a system. While frequency may be similar across different systems, train length and passenger capacity are crucial determinants of a system's capacity to serve varying levels of ridership demand.

While some metro lines with shorter lengths may indeed have higher passenger capacities due to heavier trains or other factors, it's essential to consider the overall design and capacity of the system in relation to its operational requirements and the needs of the communities it serves. By considering a comprehensive set of factors, we can ensure that rail transit systems are accurately classified to reflect their unique characteristics and roles within urban transportation networks. Sak7340 (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

also, there aren't any commuter rail systems/lines on the list, all of them were already excluded, the Shinbudang Line, AREX and Seohae Line in Seoul may look like commuter rail, but similar to many Japanese metro systems that may look like commuter rails, they do belong here, as for Korail, the Korail commuter rail lines are excluded, some of Seoul's Subway lines are operated by Korail, so therefore, thats why Korail is listed in the first place Metrosfan (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Light metros are a type of metro system, this article shows the list of all metro systems (operational, under construction and proposed), which Includes light metros, this list isnt only showing heavy rail metros Metrosfan (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

But that's just it, "light metro" is synonym for medium-capacity rail system. Literally the opening of that article is "A medium-capacity system (MCS), also known as light rapid transit or light metro". If something is on that list it doesn't go on this one. This is for heavy rapid transit only. oknazevad (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

True, I don't understand why it's even a discussion.In consideration section of this article, it's clearly stated thst heavy rail is considered as proper metro not light rail. Sak7340 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

- Never in the wiki page did definition in the page say Metro Systems are high capacity (6 or more)

- Many systems in medium-capacity rail system are still heavy rail and uses the same technology with just less than 6 cars. If it was 6 or more cars, it would be off the list

- Many medium-capacity rail system were built for lower capacity to reduce cost

- Nobody associates it as different systems (other than the reduce length) in cities that have lines that have both "light metro" and 6+ car metro (e.g. Chinese Cities, Hong Kong, Singapore) Mhaot (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, some medium-capacity systems use heavy rail tech but run shorter trains/platforms and/or less frequently, possibly with the idea that could more easily upgrade to full metro if the line warrants it in the future. We, however, live in the present, and don't try to predict the future. Especially since other medium-capacity systems are a case of using light rail vehicles but upping the carry capacity by doing things like running them in pairs not singly, fully (or almost fully) grade separating the tracks, or running as frequently as possible, especially during leak periods. That's the thing with medium-capacity systems, they're an in-between level for when full metro is not warranted, but where light rail, which is typically only partially grade separated, or trams/streetcars, which have more extensive street-running, are not robust enough. These are the four industry-recognized categories. We should keep them separate. oknazevad (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia works on references and not on someone's personal opinions. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) clearly distinguish between these systems. If you have any references to support your answer, I suggest you please mention 2402:8100:2738:571B:ED25:FD85:8B49:75F7 (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

1) FTA classified Honolulu Skyline as 'Heavy Rail'

https://www.islandlivingworking.com/post/honolulu-rails-soaring-costs-a-comparative-analysis-with-other-federal-projects#:~:text=The%20FTA%20categorizes%20it%20as,terms%20of%20functionality%20and%20size.

2) When looking at The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) site, it mentions there are different variety modes but did not mention any true classifications. Plus it does not even have light metro in the category.

https://www.apta.com/news-publications/public-transportation-facts/ Mhaot (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so in that case, we can consider the Honolulu skyline as heavy rail, but there is also a dispute about its classification. If you can provide a similar reference for other light rail transit systems that they are heavy rail or can be classified as regular metro, then you can add it. APTA deals with different types of transit systems and categorizes them into various categories, indicating that they consider them as different types of systems. 2402:8100:2738:571B:ED25:FD85:8B49:75F7 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to know the difference, light rapid transit and light rail transits are diffrent, light rail transit is similar to trams, while light rapid transit is light metro, no light rail systems are on the list, Metrosfan (talk) 06:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you need to start listening to others and learn what they say. These articles have been around for years because knowledgeable editors have worked on them for all that time. Not someone who read a fandom wiki and thinks they know what they're talking about. I'm beginning to think you don't have a strong enough grasp of the subject matter or Wikipedia policies to really contribute. I don't want to be harsh, but you are coming off as someone who needs to read the articles and their sources, not edit them for now. oknazevad (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The light metro article was made in 2007, while this article was made in 2001/2002, this article was intended to list all metro systems, both heavy and light, so therefore, these light metros should not be removed, this article was never intended to be only for heavy rail metro Metrosfan (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And for your information, there's even some Monorail lines in cities like Chongqing, Sao Paulo, Cairo, Bangkok, Daegu and Kuala Lumpur that qualifies on this list, If we were to remove half of the systems on this list, it will be inconsistent Metrosfan (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

First, the metro list article predating the other one only means that a decision was made to split off the article, limiting the scope of this one. Being were talking about something that happened over a decade and a half ago, for someone who just showed up to declare the scope of this article is, frankly, arrogant and ignorant. And again, light metros, anka medium-capacity systems, are not metros, despite that name. Do you understand the role of adjectives? Because I'm beginning to wonder. oknazevad (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If they were being made to split off the article, then all light metros would have been removed already, and about the part of light metros? How are they not even metro systems, did you even see what @Mhaotsaid, these light metros literally have true metro origins, operate in high frequency, they basically meet the criteria required for metro systems? The founders of this article never intended for this article to just be for heavy metros only, it was supposed to be a mix of both heavy and light metros. Metrosfan (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, if the light metros are already listed on a different article (which was created 5-6 years late after this), why don't you talk about why fandom has a list of urban rail transit system article? Or even talk about why Wikipedia has a list of all metro systems in Europe, this is the same logic Metrosfan (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Fandom is not Wikipedia. They have zero bearing on what we do here. Because fandom wikis are user-generated. And usually pretty terrible. oknazevad (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Why you added AREX (Airport Railroad Express) of South Korea in this list. It's literally a commuter rail. Commuter rail is very common mode of transport. It should be included in the List of commuter rail article of Wikipedia page, not here. 2402:8100:26E3:E768:CC41:CA67:6E6D:55E9 (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Sak7340 for starting this discussion and patiently replying to the concerns that have been raised. I'd support your idea and would like to suggest an option.

Proposal

• Having two separate worldwide lists on Mass Rapid Transit/Full Metro and Light Rapid Transit/Light Metro.
• Creating lists for each continent combining MRT and LRT for that continent, like already has been done for Europe.

This way readers who are interested in MRT/FM or LRT/LM only, can check one of the two worldwide lists, readers who wish to see all metro systems can go to their continent of interest. An additional bonus will be that all lists will have a more manageable size, both for readers as for us editors.

Major concern is that the most prominent source on Light Metros is the World Bank (see page 17), it leaves us with a big gap between MRT/FM (over 60k pph) and LRT/LM (below 30k pph). The APTA has a nice set of definitions (see paragragh 7), yet doesn't make any distinction between FM and LM as LM isn't mentioned at all. This is likely because the LM's oldest definitions are from either China or Taiwan. The distinction seems to be important to policy makers in several Asian countries including Indonesia and South-Korea. We need to find/renew consensus on where to draw the line between FM and LM.

Note: in this discussion LRT is not light rail, outside this discussion LRT and light rail (transit) are synonyms. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I think more people were interested to see both heavy and light metros in the same list than different, if there should also be a article for heavy metro systems only, we should make a new article (like what was done for light metro) entirely for heavy metros only, than removing all light metro systems from this article, this article has already been intended to include both, heavy and light metros systems and should stay the same way Metrosfan (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this list is meant to include heavy rapid transit only. In fact, its title was "List of rapid transit systems" until 2009, with the use of the term in the title being consistent with the article rapid transit. It was not meant to include lighter systems, only heavy rail rapid transit. If there's any systems currently on the list that you feel doesn't fit that definition, then list them here for discussion. Don't add ones that don't belong on the list. oknazevad (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Metrosfan, we can only guess what people are interested in, so offering both options (worldwide and per continent) will cater to most readers. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

it however seemed like people were interested in seeing both heavy and light metros together, because if this article was supposed to be only for heavy metro systems, then all the light metro systems/lines would have already been removed or excluded from the system a long time ago,we will have to wait for more common editors to talk about this,besides, if we want a list of heavy metro systems only article, we can create a different new one rather than removing all light metros from this article Metrosfan (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

we should wait for more editors to talk about this, hopefully they do see this Metrosfan (talk) 10:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it will be a big move, so it may be April before we meet Consensus ("Hello, nice to meet you. Where have you been all this time Consensus?). KatVanHuis (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

They were removed years ago. The addition of them back in was a) recent, b) opposed, and c) done anyway as part of an attempt to rescope this article without consensus. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this proposal, however, I think that one list showing all the systems is enough, similar to List of tram and light rail systems, with the "Type" column denoting if it is MRT, LRT, monorail, etc. Nonusme (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe these systems should stay, if we were to have a article for list of heavy rail metro systems only, we should make a new article like what's done to light metro, or include it into the Rapid Transit article,there are people who will want to see a combination list of heavy metros, light metros, and monorail metros. Metrosfan (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

For the type, I would agree, but we have a problem, some systems operate multiple type of metro styles, Eg: Bangkok MRT operates light metro (Blue and Purple Lines) and monorail metro (Yellow and Pink lines) or Singapore MRT operates heavy metro (NSL, EWL, NEL, TEL) and light metro (CCL, DTL), what are we gonna do? Metrosfan (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

A question, what is the definition of a medium-capacity rail system? Is it 250-1000 people on a single train? Is it 10,000 - 30,000 people per hour per direction? The definition is inconsistent and shifts from article to article. Nonusme (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that there should be consensus on a definition for both rapid transit and a medium-capacity system before blindly and randomly removing entries. Nonusme (talk) 01:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly Metrosfan (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The World Bank (and others sources except one) stated to draw the line at 10,000 - 30,000 people per hour per direction. The single train capacity won't work as frequency varies just too much. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right that single-train capacity doesn't work. I found out that, for example, Paris Métro Line 14 trains can carry 932 passengers, but due to its 90 second headways it can carry about 37,000 people per hour, which is a lower capacity than the Jabodebek LRT trains, which carry 1480 people a trainset, but due to the LRT's 10 minute headways, only about 9,000 people can ride the LRT her hour. Nonusme (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a very clever example! We could add it to the considerations text if we meet Consensus. KatVanHuis (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was just wondering about single train capacity because for most systems they're hard to find. Nonusme (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That's true. We could decide to use it as a back up system. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Circle Line in Singapore uses 3 car rolling stocks, however in a lot of times especially the peak hour, the train is extremely crowded, Metrosfan (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, public transport tends to get really crowded during rush hour. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

also, there are some systems like the Ho Chi Minh City Metro, Kaohsiung Rapid Transit, or Bangkok BTS SkyTrain that are metro systems, but some people may not know theyre light metro or heavy metro Metrosfan (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And also, even though there are differences between heavy metro and light metro, they're both designed to provide efficient, rapid and high capacity transportation in city areas, light metros still meet all the criteria needed for metro systems, if you guys really think light metros are not metros, please find and link a reliable source here, the Consideration section of this article didnt even say that light metros data are excluded, "Some systems may also include light metros, these are listed, but light rails are not counted in data" The consideration clearly proves that light metros belong on this article Metrosfan (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The Ho Chi Minh City Metro hasn't started its service yet, so it's hard to tell. Kaohsiung Rapid Transit is a key example of a system that's fully designed at MRT standards (6-car-trains at 3,15m wide!) but currently lacks passengers so trains are only 3 cars long. We need to find consensus whether to count the designed capacity or the designed capacity. And as for Bangkok's BTS: both lines from 1999 are 4-car trains and are probably capable of carrying 30.000 pphpd, just the Gold Line from 2020 is clearly a light metro.

Light Metros don't meet the capacity definition for MRT: that's why te definition for Medium-capacity system was created in the first place. The links are all in the Light Metro article already. KatVanHuis (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You bring up a good point about the difference between designed capacity and actual current service levels. Personally, I'd lean toward classifying based on maximum designed capacity, as it represents a real physical objective characteristic that serves as both an upper limit on systems that are unequivocally medium-capacity light metros and yet also makes sure that full metro rapid transit systems aren't left out because current demand doesn't warrant using be full capacity; running shorter or longer trains, or reducing or increasing frequency based on ridership demand is a fairly trivial adjustment and not something that should cause a system to be reclassified. Reclassification would need actual major changes to permanent infrastructure, like reconstructing stations to have longer platforms, total replacement of major systems like signaling or power, or other similar changes. oknazevad (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favour of deciding on maximum designed capacity as well. Some lines need time to grow their passenger demand, some fail to meet the desired numbers. Yet technically they are designed to care more then 30k pphpd. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Korail

How come Korail was removed here? If we are gonna end up counting it twice, what are we supposed to do? Are we just gonna include the data of Korail into the Seoul Metropolitan Subway network? Because those lines qualify for the list Metrosfan (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Korail is a mainline operator. It's a heavy rail system, not a metro system. Rckania (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I thought metros were heavy rail? 2001:A62:142C:9802:C15C:FFA8:C202:7093 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Line sharing between systems and operators

Recently, I found out that maps of the Incheon Metro (such as this one: https://www.ictr.or.kr/main/railway/guidance/map.jsp) include Seoul Subway line 7 on them, and also, that the Incheon Transit Corporation has partial ownership of line 7., and that all three lines have the same fare structure, effectively making them one "system". The Circular line in New Taipei and Taipei in Taiwan, and the Guangfo line between Guangzhou and Foshan in China are also other examples of this occurring. So, should these types of lines be listed below both systems' entries, or only one of them? Nonusme (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I was honestly asking about Korail Metro Lines aswell cause someone said if they stay on the list we will count the lines twice Metrosfan (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the Incheon Subway is branded as part of the Soeul Metropolitain Subway. It should all just be one entry. Rckania (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, should the Incheon Subway just be merged into the Seoul Metropolitan Subway? Metrosfan (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. They probably should. While they have different operators, they are branded as part of the same system. Rckania (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The Singapore Mass Rapid Transit also has two different operators, but have same systems, therefore the point seems to be valid Metrosfan (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced planned metro stystem and under construction

There are many unsourced and fantasist metro systems in these categories. I suggest removal of all the unsourced metro systems. Also, it should be clarified what should the ''planned'' section contain. How can we even source this ? Some articles with some politicians promising the construction of an hypothetic metro system doesn't sound like a valid source. I vote for the removal of this section. Capt'n London (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a reason the inclusion was always "shovels in the ground". I objected to the addition of a "planned" section for that very reason: no actual physical infrastructure exists, so they are not a system yet. Saint until some actual construction happens and put them in that section when it does. oknazevad (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

actually sometimes infrastructure for a planned metro exists before it is ever built. This may range from small tunnel segments to entire railroads or elevated lines which were built at some point in the past - sometimes with the explicit goal of conversion to metro but sometimes not.

Just look at the history of Athens Metro or Vienna U-Bahn or the Zürich U-Bahn and Cincinnati subway that never were but which still have/had tunnels you can See... 2001:A62:142C:9802:C15C:FFA8:C202:7093 (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the planned section based on the long-standing consensus seen in the talk page archives multiple times. It was added without discussion despite being previously rejected multiple times. It must not be re-added based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. oknazevad (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Lagos Metro

As with the current frequency of one train every 30mn, it doesn't qualify to be metro. If no one opposes with valid sources, it will be removed from the list. Capt'n London (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Red Line is definitely not a metro however I would not remove the Blue Line given the reason for the low frequencies and due to rolling stock shortages s however the line is built with true metro origins and was intended to function like a typical metro (if it wasn't the power issue). Editors do make exceptions in certain cases. Mhaot (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case it should be removed until it operates as an actual metro. Having it included now is missleading as it may never actually run as a metro, as do premetros which aren't included on this list. This is also the same reason why Palembang LRT is not included as for now. Capt'n London (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There already a consensus that any 'True Metro Origins' cannot be removed even if they might break a certain criteria. London Underground for example has a service which only runs 30 minute which is a Metropolitan Line to Chesham. Plus Palembang LRT is listed as a Metro System on the page. Mhaot (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it might be inconsistent if they are excluded because not all criterias are met even though most are Metrosfan (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The Oslo Metro also meets less criteria than the Lagos Metro Blue Line, as it has level crossings, which the Lagos Metro Blue Line don't, yet it's still on the list, so I am with @Mhaot Metrosfan (talk) 11:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

True Metro origin consensus works when the level of service is near to be reached, or that there actual concrete plans to reach it. However as for now, I doubt the passenger capacity is more than 2000 people per hour per direction (Assuming a train set can accommodate 1000 people, which isn't near from the reality). There no sense to list it for now, it's just misleading and untrue. Having some viaduct built on some concrete pillars and having trains seldom running on it is not enough, even if the intent to build a metro was there. Unless we have some reliable sources that the level of service will improve (such as an intent to buy more train sets), it doesn't belong here. Capt'n London (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

1) True Metro Technology and Infrastructure would almost guarantee to be a metro even if services may be short the criteria. Nobody removes London Underground Metropolitan Line for this matter even though they have Chesham and Amersham running at 30 Minute frequencies (Not to even mention a few others run at 20 minutes) but True Metro Technology and Infrastructure outweighs this.

2) An unfortunate event should not be a downgrade as any system as it was always planned as a metro

3) There is sources that say they will buy more rolling stock in the future

https://governor.lagosstate.gov.ng/2024/03/01/lagos-inaugurates-second-intra-city-rail-line-set-to-move-250000-passengers-daily/ Mhaot (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly! the only reason why the Mecca Metro Line 1 isn't included was because it only operate 7 days a year and would be more likely referred as "people's mover" or "shuttle train" Metrosfan (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia is not about ''almost guarantee'', it's about facts and sources, which we don't have.

2) Well, currently it's not a metro, and we have no concrete date when this would happen. Unfortunate events can downgrade as system if it's not operating as it should. As I said, infrastructures are meaningless without the adequate service.

3) This source isn't reliable, there is no official tender, contracts or any concrete proof that rolling stock will be acquired in the future, just a mention that the ridership will increase once when they have the full complement of rolling stock on the line. (And they are talking about the Red line, which is operated with diesel train set...)

Regarding Mecca ''metro'', I don't get why this is brought here, those systems have nothing in common. Capt'n London (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source stating that it runs every 30 minutes?

The red line is a heavy commuter rail route, not a metro. Rckania (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Metro" as a concept

"Metro" is historically the name of the Paris underground system, an abbreviation of "métropolitain". But many major underground rail systems are called differently: subway, tube, U-Bahn. Actually Berlin has a network of "metro" trams and buses that run above ground and are separate from the U-Bahn, the system called "metro" here. I would suggest to avoid the word "metro" and change to the more neutral "underground", with the additional benefit that it allows translation. 67.87.88.26 (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

In North America and parts of Asia, the term "Rapid Transit" is used as the general term for all of these systems. It is even the title of Wikipedia's own page for these systems. However, It is not used outside of those areas. Metro is the most common name to describe these systems all over the world. If you use the word metro, everyone will know what you mean. Rckania (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, metro is the main word that is being referred to these systems, mostly only in north america or UK where they will refer it as Subway, while only in SouthEast Asia and possibly Bangladesh and Taiwan aswell will refer them as "Mass Rapid Transit", Many Europeans or Americans won't understand the term Mass Rapid Transit, "Underground" is mainly only used for the Tube in London Metrosfan (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Former metros?

Should the Liverpool Overhead Railway or – if they existed – other systems which met the standards now associated with the term and now either no longer do or no longer exist be listed here? And if so, how many entries would such a list have? 2001:A62:142C:9802:C15C:FFA8:C202:7093 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If the former Liverpool system was fully independent, then I think it deserves a place on this list. However, I think the list would be rather short. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Missing metro system of Porto, Portugal lá my

The metro system of Porto has currently 69,7 km of which 10,7 are underground and 86 stations. With the current expansion in will have 80 km and 91 stations. It has currently some 174 million passengers yearly. it should be added to this list. 95.94.100.145 (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a metro. Ymblanter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Porto Metro is a light rail system, it uses light rail rolling stock, despite of the name Metrosfan (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)